RCP has been featuring Froma Harrop's writing for a few years now, and I've read several of them. She tends to come across as very sure of herself and the correctness of her assessments and analyses. Occam's Razor.

I don't know how she can be pretending to be hypocritical for humorous purposes because she really did write those things and really did/does head the civility project.

We've laughed at her about it before.

Now, was she really blind to the fact that he was talking about *her*? Or did they cut it so that it looked to us like he was talking about *her* and the parts that made it seem like he was talking about other people were taken out? Maybe so.

But her hypocrisy doesn't depend on cutting the tape. She did what she did. And her explanations about why her own statements are not overblown or "uncivil" were the statements she made. She gets to use colorful language and violent metaphors. The people she disagrees with politically do not.

Stewart is left biased. He's not going to make someone on the left look worse than she is. He's not going to create a fiction in that direction, even if he does create a creatively edited funny-piece.

She knows that her skill at spin to attack enemies is a highly valued skill among that Daily Show's viewers.

It is comparable to a calm and peaceful bar patron walking around with a large, loaded and cocked gun in her hand and acting like no one sees it. She is sending everyone a message of how dangerous she is, with the Daily Show's help.

Does it really matter whether we believe that she was being truthful or was instead truly a hypocrite? Froma Harrop is what she is, a dedicated elite, acknowledging only that which affirms her elite status as all knowing. No, Froma does not believe that she is a goddess but does, IMHAO, believe that she knows what is best and proper for us all.

My goodness, the day that she and her fellow elites sink into the mud of their pigsty will be a brighter day for all. Meanwhile, let's throw as much truth as her as we can, knowing that nothing can penetrate her thick skull.

Can you imagine that happening to a right wing columnist? This is something the left has a monopoly on. I applaud Stewart for this one, because the blindness is an integral part of our culture where liberal hypocrisy is much less joked about, pointed out, or even noticed.

My liberal friends are completely blind to their hypocrisy even when it's blatantly obvious. Just as an example: My friend was recently bagging on Perry for leading a prayer at a ball game and implying that believers can't be trusted with big decisions because they have silly beliefs. Not 30 seconds later she was seriously explaining how she was motivated by her belief in karma, and that "everything happens for a reason", and how she feels a certain energy about something and that tells her how to decide things. Liberals and racism is the same way: they can't even imagine that they could be racist because they are liberal. It's not in the realm of possibilities to them.

Heard a comment this week from a lefty complaining about how teachers used to be reverred, and how bad it is that they are not today (which I would argue that they still are, for the most part).

I reminded him how WEAC posts the tiems of locations where Governor Walker will be making public appearences....now these are official visits, not campaign or fund raising events....and WEAC tells their members to go their and "bring your drums and horns" to try to prevent the governor from being heard.

I think she caught on early (not immediately) and simply felt out of her league to deal with it using humor, and more importantly, unwilling to admit the hypocrisy, so she just kept going hoping it would end well somehow. She just isn't very bright, honest or self deprecating, because she's a dick.

The woman is humorless, and has told so many liberal lies she can't recognize the truth. She isn't playing along because she really believes she is reasonable and TEA Partiers are economic terrorists. Worse yet, those unwashed, unsophisticated TEA Partiers are not clever enough to see how brilliant she is. If they were, they would understand her sophisticated humor. Instead, what we see is a humorless, mean and spiteful member of the elite. She probably does know, on some level, that whatever power she ever had is ebbing away and that masses of people will laugh at her.

They terrorize the hell out the likes of this woman. If Froma is terrorized and it is the Tea Party that is doing it then the Tea Party are Terrorists. They held the system hostageuntil they got what they wanted and hostage taking is terrorism. The confusion they caused led to our rating being downgraded. That is, they did exactly what we did over and over and over and over and over and over and that reversal is terrorizing to behold. They are terrorists. Now, you simply must start being civil.

Liberal Progressives are by definition hypocrites. The logical dissonance all liberals undergo actually derange them. When you hear that liberalism is a mental disorder, the speaker is not using a metaphor.

I should add the proviso that I am not talking about "classical" liberals, who are more on the level of Libertarians.

Liberal Progressivism is at its heart a fascistic movement. On any subject, they do not want an individual to have freedom, but for someone else, preferably a government made up of liberal progressives, or like the angry sock monkey, themselves.

I have come to the conclusion that the rank and file of liberals are generally undeveloped personalities looking for someone to take care of them, order their lives, and just generally pamper them. That way they don't have to bare any responsibility for their failures. Much easier to play WoW X-box, than to deal with real life. Merely a extension of the nanny state mentality.

"Math is hard"--Talking Barbie."It Takes a Village"--Talking Head Hillary

"She knows that her skill at spin to attack enemies is a highly valued skill among that Daily Show's viewers.

"It is comparable to a calm and peaceful bar patron walking around with a large, loaded and cocked gun in her hand and acting like no one sees it. She is sending everyone a message of how dangerous she is, with the Daily Show's help."

WTF??!!

She was totally pwned by the Daily Show, which should show skeptical right-leaning viewers that, despite the left-leaning politics of Stewart and, presumably, others on at the show, they do not shy away from having great fun at the expense of those "on their side" who display foolishness, hypocrisy, and lack of self-awareness.

My complaint about Stewart is that he is too polite to his political guests who appear live on the show to be interviewed, all of them, from both sides of the aisle.

(Colbert's performance/monologue at the Washington Press Correspondents' Dinner a few years back where President Bush was in attendance will forever stand as a hilarious and fearless example of a prominent entertainer giving both fingers to powerful and arrogant assholes to their faces...the asshole from the Oval Office and the assholes from press corps in the audience!)

Not 30 seconds later she was seriously explaining how she was motivated by her belief in karma, and that "everything happens for a reason", and how she feels a certain energy about something and that tells her how to decide things.

You should click Crack's link. Funny stuff along exactly the same lines.

"My liberal friends are completely blind to their hypocrisy even when it's blatantly obvious. Just as an example: My friend was recently bagging on Perry for leading a prayer at a ball game and implying that believers can't be trusted with big decisions because they have silly beliefs. Not 30 seconds later she was seriously explaining how she was motivated by her belief in karma, and that "everything happens for a reason", and how she feels a certain energy about something and that tells her how to decide things."

Assuming your anecdote is true and not a made up bit of fiction in the style of Op-Ed columnists who deliver unto us the thinking of the common folk by using the stale rhetorical device of referring to "a salt 'o the earth cab driver who was conveying me the other day from one place to another was telling me in his salt 'o the earth way just what he thought about the shenanigans currently roiling the city on the Potomac" and so on and so on, this just proves--no surprise!--idiocy is to found among all people, whatever their politics may be.

I have come to the conclusion that the rank and file of liberals are generally undeveloped personalities looking for someone to take care of them, order their lives, and just generally pamper them.

They really haven't moved much out of the 'hunter-gatherer' stage of societal evolution.

They posit that if someone collects lots of berries, then others will not get any berries, and so the berries should be shared. They don't understand that, with enough time and effort, anyone can grow their own berries, or can work to get money to buy some berries, or perhaps they can trade something for them too.

Lazy Hunter-gatherers, to boot. They want other to gather berries for them to redistribute as they see fit to others who have no desire to pick their own berries.

"Colbert's performance/monologue at the Washington Press Correspondents' Dinner a few years back where President Bush was in attendance will forever stand as a hilarious and fearless example of a prominent entertainer giving both fingers to powerful and arrogant assholes to their faces."

---

There is nothing fearless in verbally attacking a sitting president in this country. Especially when that is the popular, safe position. There are no American goon squads ready to make people disappear, there may not even be an IRS waiting to double check your taxes. The Executive Branch just does not flex its muscle that way (despite some of the Obama administration's recent attempts, such as with Gibson, etc.)

As for the video, I have too much faith in humanity to think anyone would not have caught on. Maybe the first couple of cuts are possible, but when he gets up and walks around the chair, you know that this is all just being played for laughs.

I don't even think they're really hitting her very hard. She called people terrorists, and the best they can do is say: "Really? Don't you think that's uncivil?"

(Colbert's performance/monologue at the Washington Press Correspondents' Dinner a few years back where President Bush was in attendance will forever stand as a hilarious and fearless example of a prominent entertainer giving both fingers to powerful and arrogant assholes to their faces...the asshole from the Oval Office and the assholes from press corps in the audience!)

She was totally pwned by the Daily Show, which should show skeptical right-leaning viewers that, despite the left-leaning politics of Stewart and, presumably, others on at the show, they do not shy away from having great fun at the expense of those "on their side" who display foolishness, hypocrisy, and lack of self-awareness.

Alternatively, intelligent people can see that a singular exception doesn't make a rule.

The idea that Stewart "has fun at the expense" of liberals on a regular basis is silly.

Colbert's performance/monologue at the Washington Press Correspondents' Dinner a few years back where President Bush was in attendance will forever stand as a hilarious and fearless example

How was it fearless?

The US isn't your preferred Communist state where the rudeness WOULD lead to a death sentence. Imagine if he made those jokes at the expense of ANY leader who remotely believes the philosophy you espouse. Would he even be able to leave the room?

It is the fearlessness of the drama queen left, the Parlor Revolutionaries with their anarchy tattoos and their Walter Middy fantasies of oppression in AmeriKKKa. Under that construct, Colbert is "Speaking Truthiness to Power" and is SO brave.

Just because you like the content of what someone says doesn't actually make it hilarious. Unless hilarious has no actual any meaning any more.

And as far as fearless, all you have to do is look at the near complete avoidance of anything even mildly critical of Islamic readicalism among the artistic classes to understand the false bravery they are so proud of. When there is the potential of real danger involved, they turn tail and run for the most part. They know there are much, much safer targets to "fearlessly" attack.

Puck looks down from on high and observes what fools these mortal be. In order to maintain credibility as a detached, Puckish observer, Stewart has to satirize liberals three, four sometimes even five times a year. It is painful but necessary. It's the price one pays for being lofty.....It takes a considerable dearth of comedic sensibility to find Michele Bachmann a broader target of satire than, say, Barney Frank, but that's what Jon Stewart is all about. Many, perhaps most, of the biggest jerks in public life are liberals, and their jerkiness goes unremarked by late night comedians.

A friend of mine who appeared a while back on the Colbert report told me that one thing they really emphasize to their non-comic guest is "don't try to be funny." The guest is supposed to play it straight.

I do wonder if this was the advice Ms. Harrop was given and if, at some point, she realized she was being played big time.

I also wonder, with some dismay, if Ms. Harrop is really convinced that her dull metaphor (as literal description as irony as colorful language) just needs some "careful reasoning" to be made defensible.

Phil 3:14 said... A related question: Did anyone ever apologize for connecting Sarah Palin/Tea Party/Republicans to the shootings in Tucson?

Phil 3:14: FYI: This is a serious, quasi-psuedo-conservative (QPC) blog, run by an earnest and sincere professor of the law. Perhaps your weak sophomoric attempts at humor will be funny elsewhere. (Note: that is "funny elsewhere", not "funnier elsewhere", since being "funnier" first requires being funny.)*

In the interest of furthering this discussion I propose we remove all comments with even a hint, or the slightest trace, of irony in them.

*Humor is like porn: "But I know it when I see it..."

Or, from Mary Poppins "There's nothing like a good joke. And that was nothing like a good joke."

Liberals are pathologically incapable of sincere and honest apologies.

I saw this yesterday. At first, I thought she was playing along and then I realized she is a humorless person--the kind who laughs only when every one else is laughing, but still doesn't get it. I got the distinct feeling that she things satire is merely an intellectual exercise and that her "clever repartee" would win the day.

Harrop is the President of the National Conference of Editorial Writers. One project of the NCEW is the Civility Project, aimed at restoring civility to America's public discourse. Her position was criticized by the Wall Street Journal, which noted the contrast between this role and her comparison of the Tea Party to terrorist groups such as al-Qaida. In her response to the criticism, Harrop stated, "I see incivility as not letting other people speak their piece." She subsequently deleted all the comments from the post and shut down the commenting feature of her blog.

Chef Mojo says:Would love to see him pull that schtick on Putin or Hu. Or Chavez. Or Castro.

The same line of reasoning could used to talk about comments by you and your ilk regarding President Obama. In other words, your comment is a meaningless one. Obviously, in a police state, Colbert couldn't make jokes about the President in his presence or elsewhere. Fortunately, we don't live in such a state.

And before you start mumbling something about how others were talking about the courage of Colbert in making his jokes about Bush in Bush's presence, no one was suggesting Colbert was showing physical courage. But there can be professional consequences for making the wrong joke at the wrong place at the wrong time, so Colbert wasn't taking a risk-free path by saying what he said. The path of least resistance would be to do lame Mark Russell-type humor in such a context. Colbert didn't, and good for him for doing that.

And the last leftist who suffered "professional consequences" for joking about a Republican was ____?

The Dixie Chicks come to mind, though they aren't leftists and as far as I know neither is Steven Colbert. And Colbert was also mocking the sycophants in the DC media world with his comments, and that is something that Robert Cook mentioned and which Colbert could have avoided.

You didn't limit your comment to comedians, and the Dixie Chicks were making a mocking comment about Bush ("we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas") which is a joke. Not the funniest one and it was at the end of a political tirade, but it was a joke, not unlike Molly Ivins referring to George W. Bush as Shrub. And in any case, the main issue is - have people suffered professional consequences from making comments about Republicans and could Colbert have suffered consequences if his routine fell flat? Answer to both - yes.

It is when it's their party and your career can be damaged by their hostility. Colbert is playing in the big political media world as well as in the entertainment business. While most other people don't have to worry about what the DC media establishment think about them, Colbert does. Like I said, it isn't physical courage, but his stock as a performer could have dropped dramatically if the event went badly.

As a rule, I don't feed trolls, but I'll make an exception in this case for little Alex here. So the Dixie Chicks campaigned against George W. Bush in 2004. Wow, that's proof of some serious leftism. I mean, voting for John Kerry was something only a few left-wing radicals would do, right? Also, it's no surprise that they'd campaign against Bush after the fallout regarding their comments. They certainly had nothing to lose by that point (in for a penny, in for a pound) and I suspect what few good feelings they might have had towards conservative politicians earlier in life had dissipated by that point.

Compare anything Molly Ivins did to anything Vaclav Havel did (or Andrei Sakharov, or etc. etc.) and then talk about how "brave" it is to get up and speak your mind. People braver than Molly Ivins and Stephen Colbert have rolled out the red carpet for them to do just that.

The police state references are for a reason. They set the standard for bravery and there are truly brave people in the world. Molly Ivins and Stephen Colbert aren't one of them. Or at least, they have yet to encounter a situation where they can prove they are. They are simply exercising a right secured for them and everyone else in this country by the brave people who came before us. Exercising a right and being responsible for its preservation is not the same thing.

The police state references are for a reason. They set the standard for bravery and there are truly brave people in the world.

There are truly brave people in the world and those are the ones who stand up in a police state. Well no shit, Sherlock, I don't think that's being disputed.

But are you saying that's the only standard for bravery? That the only people who face pressures are those who are facing the Gulag? So, in your world, possible social ostracism or retaliation at one's work (to name two concerns people might have in a free society) are mere trifles that one shouldn't worry about? If so, I'll keep that in mind next time I see or hear a conservative complaining about how hard it is for conservatives in this society and how oppressed they are (particularly in places like academia). Thanks for the input!

Colbert got up at the correspondent's dinner knowing damn well that his anti-Bush comments would be well received by the entertainment and media elite. There was no reason to think that he would suffer any personal or professional consequences from his remarks, and he hasn't.

Entertainers do face consequences for becoming political. They also face consequences for social mishaps or bad behavior or being in a real stinker of a movie.

That said, I think that when the blowback comes for liberal comments it's always a surprise to everyone involved, which is every bit as insulting as the initial offense. Did the Dixie Chicks really not have the first clue who listened to their music?

There's a long list of has-been or pretty much never-were actresses trying to stay in the spotlight, get that face-time so we don't forget them, by taking up political causes. Do they really think that they can build a resurgent career by getting themselves in the news by being hateful bitches? It works to get invited (again) to the Joy Behar show, but what else do they gain? Might as well hang a sign around their necks "don't want to work again."

If, in a few years, we're asking "Oprah, who?" it's only half the question.

It is when it's their party and your career can be damaged by their hostility. Colbert is playing in the big political media world as well as in the entertainment business. While most other people don't have to worry about what the DC media establishment think about them, Colbert does

Really?

So if Colbert is in some danger for not playing nice with the DC Media, how come he hasn't been adversely affected?

There's a difference, too, I think, between having a political opinion that is known by others and undertaking advocacy. Dixie Chicks on stage in front of a foreign audience saying they're ashamed isn't the same thing as Dixie Chicks back stage or at home grousing to a friend. Is the standard to avoid an negative impact on your career one of being deceptive and utterly closeted? Or is it a standard of not publicly and internationally calling at least half your audience nasty names?

As for the Dixie Chicks, they just made the mistake of messing with Texas. If they had just dumped on Bush, I don't think they would have gotten as much flak, if any. It was the whole bringing in Texas, even tangentially, that got them caught.

Making fun of Bush -- OK.

Saying anything even mildly disapproving of anything that ever has happened, is happening or will happen in Texas -- career suicide.

I remember that from fifth grade. We were doing Definition Flashcards, and the teacher held up the "Incivility" card, and just a split second before me, Peter shouted "nonfactual and uninformed opinions hidden in anonymity or false identities". Teacher gave him credit even though he didn't cite the Internet. I was angry and defeated.

Jay, the only epic failure here is your reading comprehension skills. And that failure apparently extends to your inability to understand what you wrote yourself, much less what I wrote. But good luck with your future endeavors.

Matthew said: As for the Dixie Chicks, they just made the mistake of messing with Texas.

There's some truth in that. They did insult a big part of their fan base by bringing Texas into it. Not a good move.

Synova said:There's a long list of has-been or pretty much never-were actresses trying to stay in the spotlight, get that face-time so we don't forget them, by taking up political causes.

No surprise. Factual and informed opinions are always going to agree with her opinions. And she is entitled to express those opinions in vivid ways.

Anyone she disagrees with is by definition uncivil, since their opinions are uninformed or unfactual. The Tea Party doesn't have reasonable but different ideas about how to fix the nation. They are terrorists attempting to destroy it. And they do not have the right to use colorful or evocative language.

How can anyone not understand her fine distinctions of meaning?

The humorist on Stewart got it absolutely right... hit the lady with an irony bat and she still won't see it.

Jay, the only epic failure here is your reading comprehension skills. And that failure apparently extends to your inability to understand what you wrote yourself, much less what I wrote. But good luck with your future endeavors.

In other words, when presenting a "fact" you were challenged and could not respond with any evidence of your "facts"

But I think you should go on pretending the Dixie Chicks were telling a joke.

There's a down side to being too far left, but if you go too far over the edge, there are plush cushions to break your fall. Case in point: Alger Hiss. At the end of his life, he was reinstated to the bar, granted a government pension, and gave well paid speeches to cheering college audiences. The Dixie Chicks lost some income but achieved martyr status to compensate for that lost income. The firing of the Smother Brothers gave them lasting fame and employment. There are some tactical disadvantages to being too far out there, but in the long run it pays off in peer respect if not in income. The Hollywood left have had any number of movies made celebrating brave struggle to get rich while remaining Communist.

Milwaukee, Phil 3:14: FYI: This is a serious, quasi-psuedo-conservative (QPC) blog, run by an earnest and sincere professor of the law. Perhaps your weak sophomoric attempts at humor will be funny elsewhere. (Note: that is "funny elsewhere", not "funnier elsewhere", since being "funnier" first requires being funny.)*

Sorry, I don't understand where you're coming from; it was a sincere question.

Oh my gosh, Phil 3:14, you were serious when you wrote "Did anyone ever apologize for connecting Sarah Palin/Tea Party/Republicans to the shootings in Tucson?". I thought that must have been a jest. Our political leaders of all stripes are disinclined to apologize for misrepresenting the truth. Our political commentators are as well. They aren't inclined to say "Whoops, well that didn't go well." Or, "I made a mistake when ..." Except 0bama, when he apologizes it might be something like 'This isn't going as well as planned because we didn't realize how seriously screwed up Bushie made things.' See, he can stick digs into his NOT-Apologies.

Well, if you were making a joke, my comments stand. ("This is a serious, quasi-psuedo-conservative (QPC) blog, run by an earnest and sincere professor of the law." If you weren't, they still stand, but we can change the second sentence to "Perhaps your weak sophomoric attempts at seriousness will be seriously regarded elsewhere.")

Since liberals for the most part seem to have released themselves from any moral compass, nothing is their fault, since fault implies a desired standard of behavior they didn't meet, so they don't need to apologize. Or what they did is just an example of their brilliant and witty humor, and the rest of us are just too stupid to understand parody or satire. (Which reminds me of comments a former acquaintance of mine made. He was the Superintendent of a medium security prison. He said he interviewed all new prisoners. To a man, they all either denied doing the crime, or didn't understand why everybody was making such a big deal over a little thing.)

I mean, voting for John Kerry was something only a few left-wing radicals would do, right

Basically, yes. You couldn't point to intellect, ideas, or competence to justify a vote for it.

They certainly had nothing to lose by that point (in for a penny, in for a pound) and I suspect what few good feelings they might have had towards conservative politicians earlier in life had dissipated by that point.

Because Republican politicians are why their audience turned on them?

While most other people don't have to worry about what the DC media establishment think about them, Colbert does

And "making fun of conservatives" is the single most common reason the establishment media turns on reporters. Happens all of the time.

Um, the fact that one person doesn't suffer consequences for what they say doesn't mean that others won't.

True. Don Imus fall from grace began with an appearance mocking Clinton in that event in 1995.